1. New innovations to recycle phosphorus Liisa Pietola, Research Centre Hanninghof, Agronomic R&D Yara International ASA EU Strategy for Baltic Sea Region Priority 9/Rural development & Agriculture The House of Estates Helsinki 22.1.2010

2. Liisa Pietola Contents 1. Aiming efficient phosphorus use by general farming practises – Fertilisation best management practises FBMP 2. Focus of innovation: hot spots of P load – Soils – Manures 3. New innovations – Gypsum -based products –Manure treatment –Soil treatment – To improve P recycling and efficient use for cropping –In accordance of "Putting best practices in agriculture into work“ …without reducing the productivity or the competitiveness of the farming” (p 11, European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region SEC (2009) 712) P P P

3. Liisa Pietola Fertiliser and nutrient management  Suggested measures by HELCOM to reduce N and P losses Nutrient balances – Reduced fertilisation –Optimised: supply=removal Integration of fertiliser and manure supply Liming Avoiding the application of fertilisers and manure to high-risk areas Avoiding spreading of fertilisers and manure during high-risk periods Catch crops Systematic on-farm individual advice The measures are supported  By best fertiliser management practises BFMP by EFMA/Yara  Application and farmer services 1.Aiming efficient phosphorus use by general farming practises

4. Liisa Pietola 2.Focus of innovation: hot spots of P load Hot spots  Turbid runoff from erosion sensitive soils –P transported within soil particles by water erosion l Clay soils & soils compacted by heavy machinery  Phosphorus rich soils  Manure amendment soils –P leaches easily without soil adsorption l Soils rich in dissolved P due to surplus vs plant needs: l Pig manure P:N 1:3 vs. cereals 1:6 or grasses 1:9 –Dissolved P adsorption weak by organic material Fig. ValkamaFig. Alasuutarii

5. Liisa Pietola Current specific tools to control P losses: 1. Reduced tillage – direct sowing 2. Constructed wetlands 3. Buffer zones Additional innovations needed: 4. Chemical methods for P absorption: –In-field – not out –For crop reuse  P should remain a a part of ecological cycle for continuous use in agriculture –No strong precipitation mechanisms New Innovations: Focus on hot spots 1. Erosion = particle phosphorus of runoff 2. Manure phosphorus 3.Tools keep P in fields

6. Liisa Pietola –CaSO 4 *H 2 O as 1. Soil amendment on fields (4 tn/ha) 2. Precipitate enhancer mixed into manures (4 kg/tn) (with MgO) Calcium (Ca) or Magnesium (Mg) -bound phosphorus (P) usable for crops  in soil pH 6-7 unlike Iron (Fe)- or Aluminium (Al)-precipitates Gypsum -based solutions on-farm tests: Sakari Alasuutari TTS

7. Liisa Pietola 5.Solid: NPK-fertilizer or for energy production 4.Liquid: NK-fertilizer 1.Gypsum-based precipitate 2.Stirring 3.Sedimentation by settling Precipitate (0,2-0,5 %) Ca-phosphates MgNH 4 -phosphate P available for crops no / low P high P How does gypsum reacts in manures?

8. Liisa Pietola Into low- and high –P fractions by gypsum-based precipitate – P-free effluent after solid removal and settling of phosphates – P-rich solids at the bottom of farm pit Manure P fractioning in practise P for separate use for fields where P is needed Sakari Alasuutari TTS

9. Liisa Pietola Crop response: manure treatment Biomass of wheat shoots fertilised by manure liquid or untreated manure: P concentration of shoots Sakari Alasuutari TTS

10. Liisa Pietola Ca-sulphate dissolves readily  Increases soil Ca and SO 4 concentration and EC –Which enable P trapping  Soil aggregation improves  Turbidity decreases  Particle P transportation decreases How does gypsum react in soils? PO 4 3- P in leaching water decreases due to EC effect in runoff decreases: due increased Ca and EC Soil-bound P

11. Liisa Pietola Spreading prior to tillage (0, 2, 4, 6 tn/ha) Phosphorus leaching control in practise Soil aggregation next spring Control: turbid pond 4 tn/ha gypsum: clear pond Pasi Valkama VHVSY Sakari Alasuutari TTS Ulla Kulokoski Yara

12. Liisa Pietola 4 tn/ha gypsum before ploughing 2009 6 tn/ha 0 tn/ha Crop response: soil treatment More Gypsum better growth… In 2009 for wheat

13. Liisa Pietola Crop response: soil treatment P uptake by wheat shoots SM minimum till S direct sowing K mouldboard ploughing 0, 2, 4 = ton/ha gypsum Gypsum rate increases 0, 2, 4, 6 tn/ha Minimum-till No-till Plough

14. Liisa Pietola Conclusions 1.Turbidity (soil particle P) of runoff remarkable (70-50%) decreased during the first winter after soil treatment 2.Leaching of dissolved soil phosphorus was decreased 3.Liquid manure, of which major part of phosphorus was fractionated into fibres, well infiltrated into soils for efficient crop nutrient use 4.More efficient P uptake of crops after soil or manure treatments 5.Solutions were applicable for farm management practises and did not harm crop growth, rather vice versa and in accordance with: "Putting best practices in agriculture into work“ …without reducing the productivity or the competitiveness of the farming” (p 11, European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region SEC (2009) 712) Effect durability are currently testing by the TraP project

15. Liisa Pietola Our partners in the R&D project TraP Novel gypsum-based products for farm scale phosphorus trapping (2008-2011)  Yara-Tekes ( Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation )- project SYKE Finnish Environment Institute, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, TTS Work Efficiency Institute, Luode Consulting Ltd. VHVSY Water Protection Association of The River Vantaa and Helsinki region, Local farmers (15), South-Western Environmental Agency (ELY) Thank you!